Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 13:49 UTC
Syllable, AtheOS "I have started to port the linux ACPI subsystem because ACPI is becoming more important now and slowly replaces subsystems like the pci routing table, multi-processor table and apm. The Linux ACPI code is based on the os independent intel reference implementation and so the port has been very easy (and fast to do) so far. Currently the ACPI busmanager contains the basic acpi code (about 90% of the code)."
Order by: Score:
Heh
by Lazarus on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 15:36 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Good luck with that. It seems that ACPI support is a real PITA for people who aren't Microsoft.

For example, on most of my machines, FreeBSD and DragonFly ACPI works fine, and Linux's and NetBSD's does not. The base ACPI code for all those projects comes from the same Intel code. I personally know quite a few people who have the exact opposite experiences as mine.

ACPI is a real sore spot for most OS projects who bother to try.

Reply Score: 1

So that's where the action is
by Ronald Vos on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 15:44 UTC
Ronald Vos
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm subscribed to the mailing lists, and from that it seems there's not much happening any more with Syllable, or at least the basic systems. Glad to see that's not the whole picture ;)

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm subscribed to the mailing lists, and from that it seems there's not much happening any more with Syllable, or at least the basic systems. Glad to see that's not the whole picture ;)

I'm obviously subscribed to the m-l's too, but I think you may have joined the wrong ones then! There's quite some activity in the m-l's, as seen in this screenshot:

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/1525/syll3cx.png

And that's just one of the two active m-l's!

Reply Score: 5

Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Ehrr..ok I'm on the same list. But obviously having Gmail's condensed view of multiple messages and several other high volume mailinglists drowning Syllable out in my inbox might have something to do with it. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Erm...
by remenic on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 16:08 UTC
remenic
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux' ACPI implementation doesn't work for 90% of the laptops out there. My question is: why bother?

You're copying the wrong ACPI implementation.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Erm...
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 16:15 UTC in reply to "Erm..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

My question, on the other hand, is which would you suggest yourself? (it worked on three laptops I had in hands)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Erm...
by remenic on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Erm..."
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd suggest reverse engineering the implementation all manufacturers test with.

Either you got very lucky with your laptops, or you never used much functionality of ACPI. Did STR work?

I'd like to know which laptops you tried it on.

Then again, you claim it worked (did you sell the laptops, or did it stop working after a while?) on three laptops you had in hands. But you never said how many you had on which it didn't work ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Erm...
by rayiner on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Erm..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd suggest reverse engineering the implementation all manufacturers test with.

That'd be the Windows one. Good luck reverse-engineering that piece of crap.*

*) No, "piece of crap" is not too harsh. NVIDIA and ATI manage to build implementations of OpenGL compatible with SGI's reference implementation. The fact that Microsoft's isn't compatible with Intel's reference implementation (when ACPI is an Intel technology!) suggests that their programmers are either too stupid to implement the spec properly, or too arrogant to care.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Erm...
by mjg59 on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Erm..."
mjg59 Member since:
2005-10-17

Of the ~30 laptops that Ubuntu tested for 5.10 (see http://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam ), ACPI suspend to RAM works on 25 of them. That doesn't strike me as too bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Erm...
by AdamW on Mon 24th Oct 2005 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Erm..."
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem with ACPI implementations is that everyone is implementing it. The hardware manufacturer and the operating system are both 'implementing' the ACPI standard. The problem is that it's just not a very well designed standard, and it's entirely possible for everyon to do a reasonable approximation of 'implementing' the ACPI standard, and then find that their bits don't work with each other. Of course, all the hardware manufacturers usually care about is whether their implementation works with Microsoft's implementation...even if it doesn't work with Linux's, or BSD's, or Syllable's.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Erm...
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 20:00 UTC in reply to "Erm..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

90%?

I've owned 3 laptops, acpi worked 100% on them all, everyone I know that runs linux and uses acpi it works for also.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Erm...
by remenic on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Erm..."
remenic Member since:
2005-07-06

Very well, I believe you all. I must be seeing things then.

But just look at the list of "fixed" DTST's on the ACPI website. It's not 10 or 20 or so. It's more like 1000 of them. Every model needs a new one. Pathetic.

And "patching" your DTST isn't easy for the casual user. I stand my ground; Linux's ACPI doesn't work out-of-the-box for most laptops.

I'm sure that most laptop's can be fixed. I've tried to get mine fixed for over a year, without luck. So please forgive me for not giving much liking to Linux's crappy ACPI implementation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Erm...
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Erm..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

But just look at the list of "fixed" DTST's on the ACPI website. It's not 10 or 20 or so. It's more like 1000 of them. Every model needs a new one. Pathetic.

It is pathetic, but also far away from being Linux's fault. Those DSDT tables do *not* compile cleanly with Intel's IASL compiler.

You should blame the mainboard manufacturers for not being able to come up with a proper DSDT table -- not Linux...

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Erm...
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Erm..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

So please forgive me for not giving much liking to Linux's crappy ACPI implementation.

Again, it's your laptop's crappy ACPI implementation.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Erm...
by hobgoblin on Mon 24th Oct 2005 01:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Erm..."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

most likely tested on a test setup from microsoft...

Reply Score: 1

'eh...
by Anonymous on Sun 23rd Oct 2005 20:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

str works perfectly on my toshiba portege 3110ct running debian.

Reply Score: 0